Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: BM <m-e-d-a-w-a-r@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:55:13 -0500
josephmouhanna wrote:
Obviously, added more APIs, without taking any out, adds more code.
Even if you do take out you still have to add code.
Not what I was talking about though. This was in response to your question about how the percentage of source code changes between OS iterations, as it relates to Windows security flaws. My point here is that there are applications out there that use certain APIs, and if the API itself may be flawed, yanking it out may be a problem by itself. You can add a new call, but the applications out there that use the existing API should still be allowed to run. With the number of applications out there, this becomes a massive problem. You could wipe the slate clean, whic is what Linux did, and you have a better shot at an initial *clean* kernel. Eventually, your success will catch up with you (the other point I was trying to make).
My point was that each iteration MS code changes a lot [win3 -> win95 -> winnt -> win2k -> winxp]
The contrast to Linux is that the linux kernel changes little between versions, so little that it is more storage cost effective to distribute source diffs.
The deeper point that I was making is that the large volume of source changes between major releases explains (in part) why Windows is defect prone.
[on open source]
This has yet to be proven in the field.
You're taking servers and I'm talking desktops.
The above statement "This has yet to be proven in the field" is yours, not mine. The context was open source, not server of desktop. At any rate:
- Mozilla (BTW 1.5 just out) with some 10% of the market
Mozilla is a desktop app.
Microsoft had almost no market share in the Server space.
Microsoft first shot at server segment came with NT. It's been a decade since NT. Linux is a little over a decade old. Length of time is comparable (slight edge to Linux) as far as funding behind the OS, Window has a big edge.
It's been gaining consistently, and both the Microsoft platform and Linux platforms are growing at the expense of Linux and other servers.
Note Solaris went this week open source :-)
You're assuming that this would not be the case for Microsoft products, and this is not an assumption you can make. You also have to stay within the bounds of the OS, i.e. XP, XP Home, Server 2003, etc.
Not having signed any NDA, I have no idea what the Windows source looks like. I am making an educated guess based on the changed functionality as a user. As to staying within bounds, that's precisely my point. With Linux you don't have to stay within bounds to make a usable diff.
The motherboard does not have a spec per se,
Why not, they grow on trees? :-)
the components do and *all* of the components' specs are released. In this case, I did not say that the driver does not exist (it's on the VIA web site). It's available there only as source code, with minimal instructions. I would have to compile it (the compiler portion of the install failed), and then figure out how to install it.
That's exactly my point. If VIA were to release its hardware spec then there would be third party Linux drivers for it. As it is, you have to rely on what the vendor releases on the vendor terms.
Standards are not set by a company. They are set by standard bodies.
I'll have to disagree on this. De facto, standards are set by how well the market accepts them.
Market proves an innovation, a standards body makes it standard. "Defecato standards" by a monopoly say more about the monopoly than about the standard.
There are plenty of standard bodies out there defining things that hardly anyone will ever use.
Yet there are standards that are the basic block of everything we use today from ASCII, to communication protocols going through how many rings are on a shower curtain :-)
Until it's accepted by the market, it's not a standard.
This sounds like a religious argument.
You don't think Microsoft will release Linux versions of its products? It will if the market is large enough. It seleases its office suite for the MAC.
MAC is a different story. Aside from the technical merits, MAC is a fig leaf for MS in its dispute with the DoJ.
Not sure I would call these specs.
I didn't call them specs.
Hmm. You asked for an evaluation of the MIT laptop for Lebanon. The laptop *is* exclusively an education-targeted tool, specifically for kids. I don't know how to frame it any differently in relation to this particular MIT project.
When I saw what the laptop offered, I lost interest.
Absolutely, but then we're no longer discussing the MIT project.
I moved to something else, having lost interest in the MIT toy.
I had this conversation earlier today with someone who's organizing a Lebanese IT visit to our area next week. I'll meet with them as well next week, and repeat same.
Thanks.. we need to repeat it until it sinks. I read today at Intel is openming a $3.5 US Billion chip manufactoring plant in Israel.
It's because it's not something that can be stolen. IT comapnies in Lebanon develop proprietary apps for the Lebanese and Arab markets. They get paid for the project, education and support. They don't worry about piracy.
Custom development.. limited market... small shops.. small vision.
You assume that the guy in the suit has no clue how to do long term planning.
No.. I am sure he must have gone to some planing school.. that's not the point. The point is that he/she is driven to make instant gains. As such he/she can not afford long term plans because long term plans don't "put a meal on the table at the end of the day", to use your expression.
Not true. A whole lot of people on business suits spend a lot of time trying to figure out what should be done now, to insure success five years from now.
Sure, if they have deep pockets and are worried about their position in five years to come.
I'll bring up Microsoft: it has been investing in R&D for more than eight years, with an eye on entering the market for TV in 2006 or 2007. Another example is the Xbox: it costs Microsoft about $200 more to build the box than they charge for it (and this is cost of hardware alone), so the suits there are not thinking this quarter or the next, they're thinking a number of years to build enough momentum for their future software sales.
Deep pockets permit companies to exercise a dumping strategy (selling below cost). Dumping is illegal in some other industries.
Why keep it anonymous, it's not like the annoucements were not made in the press. That same comapny (BTW), cut a deal with the Algerians. The Algerian national program prescribes four PC models (two desktop and two laptops). They all come bundled with XP and Office 2003.
Because the point was not about the behemoth that cut the deal but the lack of vision on the part of the (then) government to have a winning IT strategy in Lebanon.
bassem .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: josephmouhanna
- Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- References:
- Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: BM
- Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: josephmouhanna
- Future of IT in Lebanon
- Prev by Date: Re: How to
- Next by Date: Re: How to
- Previous by thread: Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- Next by thread: Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
